It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This question?
Originally posted by Mary Rose
And I thought we were calling Rodin's math base 10. Thus, my question.
That question makes it sound like you thought Rodin's math was something other than base 10, but now you're saying Rodin's math is base 10, so obviously I didn't understand your question. Maybe you can clarify what you're asking?
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Is it accurate to be talking about base 10 and its attributes vs. other bases when base 10 has 10 digits but Rodin's math only uses 9?
Since Rodin is using base 10, that is the reason base 10 is on the chart. Why would base 9 be on the chart? You quoted something from Rodin about his "math" and I use the term loosely, related to doubling. The reasons bases 2, 8 and 16 were chosen for comparison is because they have been used by engineers in computer applications, partly because of the way they handle doubling, which is better than the way base 10 handles doubling as far as computer engineering is concerned.
Why is base 9 not in your chart:
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Also, don't forget to count zero...it's a digit also. I know Rodin likes to just drop the zero from 10 and call it 1, but trust me, 10 and 1 are different, so you need the 0.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
I'm referring to what he starts with.
He starts out with 6 digits when he doubles but the engineer would start with 10.
Is that correct?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by buddhasystem
It's probably a hopeless cause.
However I still don't understand why anybody sees anything in Rodin's stuff so my thought was, if I could understand better what they see in it, then I might be able to explain better why there's nothing to it
and as you pointed out that base 10 which Rodin happened to use is nothing special.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, a computer engineer would often start with a binary code, or octal, or hexadecimal. I've used all three.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, a computer engineer would often start with a binary code, or octal, or hexadecimal. I've used all three.
That begs the question, does it not?
Regarding doubling:
When a computer application engineer uses base 10, (which is not preferred - I understand), there are 10 digits being used, correct?
Rodin doesn't use 3, 6, or 9, so his math ... uses only 6 digits for the doubling.
So if you compare base 10 being used by the engineer to Rodin's math it would be 10 digits vs. 6. Do you agree with that?
I'm referring to what he starts with.
He starts out with 6 digits when he doubles but the engineer would start with 10.
Is that correct?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Part of this discussion is trying to make sense out of nonsense so as buddhasystem suggests it's pointless anyway.
The part about why anybody wants to add the 3 and the 2 in 32 in the first place.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Part of this discussion is trying to make sense out of nonsense so as buddhasystem suggests it's pointless anyway.
Part of this discussion? What part?
That's logical, but that's not what Rodin does with his results; he tries to use the result for some nonsense instead of for a sanity check. So, Rodin doesn't pass the sanity check.
Casting out nines is a sanity check to ensure that hand computations of sums, differences, products, and quotients of integers are correct.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That's logical, but that's not what Rodin does with his results; he tries to use the result for some nonsense instead of for a sanity check.
I can take the square root of the first 1000 prime numbers and paint them on my car and claim that makes it a time machine. That's a new application of prime numbers.
I don't concede that.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Okay. So, you concede that you don't have an argument based on the logic of the math used.